ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
WELCOME Guys and Gals!
Don't forget to read the new RULES in the RULES & ANNOUNCEMENTS Forum.
You can also check out our latest topics or the latest posts
Also you can take a peek at the non-erotic official forum cartoons here.
BBCode | Smilies
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1889
Jan 29 04 12:27 AM
Permanent Member
Quote:Now the duty to defend citizens has nothing of inherently democratic... it's basically common sense... even the most fascistic, ruthless dictator wants to rule something and will protect it.
Quote:preemption is not agreession against a non agressive country. This should be obvious to anyone... sure, preemption may be claimed when no actual threat exists... but that should be verified case by case. Again I say that even if there are doubts about the necessity of preemption in a certain case, it is almost only post war that it is possible to verify whose perception was correct, the preemptor's or the ones saying there was no threat. So you see... facts, or substance, are always the arbiters... perception is only important when you want to play shadow games, or subtle diplomacy... honesty has a certain power in itself... it can't be contradicted... if you are honest and don't lie... whatever the perception, you know that no proof can contradict you... this should also be obvious (deception and false evidence aside as the world is obviously a complicated place)
Quote:well I think the US is the only possible nation that can democratise the Middle East...
Quote:Then your perception that democracy implies attacking non democracies... well I can safely assume that many monarquies in europe feel no military threat at all from the US whereas so called People's Republics may be having a bit of cold sweat... and to me that's good as Qaddafi proved...
Quote:you are very correct extremist groups and nations should be tolerated... unless they represent a threat...
Interact
Share This